Tag: CARES Act

SBA Rulemaking and Guidance Challenged in Federal Lawsuits in Connection with PPP Loan Guidance

The Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) was signed into law by the President on March 27, 2020. Title I of the CARES Act, named “Keeping American Workers Employed and Paid” by Congress, appropriated $659 billion for loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).

Section 1114 of the CARES Act instructs the SBA to issue regulations “to carry out this title and the amendments made by this title” within fifteen days and without regard to the usual notice requirements, which the SBA did in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (the “FAQs”). 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001(1), 9012.

While ostensibly intended to clarify uncertainty in the CARES Act, two recent federal lawsuits challenge certain rulemaking and guidance promulgated by the SBA. The question before the courts is whether such rulemaking and guidance is a lawful interpretation of the CARES Act or, as the plaintiffs argue, amounts to illegal rulemaking.

Agencies are prohibited by the Administrative Procedures Act from taking action “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). The validity of an agency’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed by a court using the two-step framework outlined in the landmark case, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The first question reviewed in the Chevron analysis is, “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43.

The plaintiffs argue that certain elements of the SBA guidance did not give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress and, as a result, are unlawful and unenforceable.

DV Diamond Club of Flint v. SBA

DV Diamond Club of Flint LLC (“DV Diamond”) is a strip club in Flint, Michigan, which feared that it would be denied a PPP loan by lenders as a result of guidance from the SBA that is not consistent with the CARES Act. DV Diamond’s initial complaint, dated April 8, 2020, was amended on April 17, 2020 to add forty-one new co-plaintiffs (collectively with DV Diamond, the “Plaintiffs”), each of which claims to operate a legal sexual oriented business which meets the eligibility requirements under the CARES Act. The Plaintiffs argue that the CARES Act is unambiguous as to what businesses are eligible for PPP loans and the SBA, therefore, has no right to assert additional eligibility requirements or disqualifiers. See DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC v. U.S. SBA, 20-cv-10899, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82213, at *27 (E.D. Mich. May 11, 2020).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “District Court”) issued an injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs, noting that Congress unambiguously stated that the SBA may not exclude from eligibility for a PPP loan guarantee a business that met the CARES Act’s size standard for eligibility. Id. at *27.

The District Court agreed with the Plaintiffs that, “under step one of Chevron that the PPP Ineligibility Rule conflicts with the PPP and is therefore invalid.” Id. at *42.

“Congress provided temporary paycheck support to all Americans employed by all small businesses that satisfied the two eligibility requirements—even businesses that may have been disfavored during normal times.” Id. at *4-5.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the SBA’s motion for a stay of the injunction, holding that the relevant factors, including the Plaintiff’s likelihood success, weighed in favor of the Plaintiff. DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC v. SBA, No. 20-1437, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 15822, at *8 (6th Cir. May 15, 2020).

Zumasys, Inc. v. SBA

Zumasys and two affiliated companies (collectively, “Zumasys”) received PPP loans but are concerned that they may subsequently be deemed ineligible as a result of “improper, and legally impermissible, underground regulation” promulgated by the SBA. (Zumasys, Inc. v. U.S. SBA et al., Dkt. No. 20-cv-008511, Dkt. 1 (the Zumasys Complaint) ¶ 58.)

Zumasys claims to have acted in reliance on the CARES Act by obtaining—and spending—what they expected to be forgivable PPP funds under the terms of the CARES Act rather than furloughing or terminating their employees. Subsequently, guidance set forth in questions 31 and 37 of the SBA’s Frequently Asked Questions, according to Zumasys, might require their loans to be repaid. Zumasys claims that being forced to repay their loans will place them in a worse financial position than had it never sought the PPP funds.

The SBA’s “credit elsewhere” test, which requires a borrower to demonstrate that the needed financing is not otherwise available on reasonable terms from non-governmental sources, was expressly excluded as an eligibility requirement to obtain a PPP loan by Congress. Zumasys alleges, however, that the FAQs “purport to re-impose the “credit elsewhere” requirement in contravention of” the CARES Act. (Id. ¶ 66.)

As a result, in an argument similar to that made by DV Diamond and its co-plaintiffs, Zumasys asserts that the FAQs “are not in accordance with the law and exceed Defendants’ authority under the CARES Act,” and asks that the SBA should be enjoined from enforcing them by the court. (Id.)

Subsequent to the filing of the Zumasys lawsuit, on May 13, 2020, the SBA issued guidance in question 46 in the FAQs that any borrower that, together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of less than $2 million will be deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith.

While this development, on its face, would seem to alleviate the concerns of Zumasys, a great deal of uncertainty remains for borrowers in connection with the guidance that has been released by the SBA since the passing of the CARES Act into law. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that subsequent guidance from the SBA will not contradict the guidance currently being relied upon, and in FAQ 39 the SBA noted that it will review all loans in excess of $2 million and in subsequent rulemaking it noted that with respect to a PPP Loan of any size, the “SBA may undertake a review at any time in [the] SBA’s discretion.”

Conclusion

The challenges by DV Diamond, Zumasys and other plaintiffs will hinge on whether or not the applicable courts determine that the guidance issued by the SBA is inconsistent with the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.

To the extent that borrowers and applicants continue to believe that problematic discrepancies exist between the law and guidance being delivered by the SBA, and the SBA subsequently determines that a borrower is ineligible for a PPP loan or forgiveness of such loan, the courts may in the future be called upon again to apply the Chevron analysis to the SBA’s actions in connection with the PPP.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

© Copyright 2020 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
For more on SBA’s PPP loans, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 – Changes To The CARES Act

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (“Act”) by voice vote.  The bill had passed the U.S. House on May 28 nearly unanimously.  It now heads to the President’s desk for signature.

Summary of Key Provisions

The Act provides important new flexibility to borrowers in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) in a number of key respects:

Loan Maturity Date: The Act extends the maturity date of the PPP loans (i.e. any portion of a PPP loan that is not forgiven) from 2 years to 5 years.  This provision of the Act only affects borrowers whose PPP loans are disbursed after its enactment.  With respect to already existing PPP loans, the Act states specifically that nothing in the Act will “prohibit lenders and borrowers from mutually agreeing to modify the maturity terms of a covered loan.”

Deadline to Use the Loan Proceeds: The Act extends the “covered period” with respect to loan forgiveness from the original 8 week period after the loan is disbursed to the earlier of 24 weeks after the loan is disbursed or December 31, 2020.  Current borrowers who have received their loans prior to the enactment of the Act may nevertheless elect the shorter 8 week period.

Forgivable Uses of the Loan Proceeds: The Act raises the cap on the amount of forgivable loan proceeds that borrowers may use on non-payroll expenses from 25% to 40%.  The Act does not affect the PPP’s existing restrictions on borrowers’ use of the loan proceeds to eligible expenses: payroll and benefits; interest (but not principal) on mortgages or other existing debt; rent; and utilities.

Safe Harbor for Rehiring Workers: Loan forgiveness under the PPP remains subject to reduction in proportion to any reduction in a borrower’s full-time equivalent employees (“FTEs”) against prior staffing level benchmarks.  The Act extends the PPP’s existing safe harbor deadline to December 31, 2020: borrowers who furloughed or laid-off workers will not be subject to a loan forgiveness reduction due to reduced FTE count as long as they restore their FTEs by the deadline.

New Exemptions from Rehiring Workers: The Act also adds two exemptions to the PPP’s loan forgiveness reduction penalties.  Firstly, the forgiveness amount will not be reduced due to a reduced FTE count if the borrower can document that they attempted, but were unable, to rehire individuals who had been employees on February 15, 2020 (this codifies a PPP FAQ answer discussed on a previous post) and have been unable to hire “similarly qualified employees” before December 31, 2020.  Secondly, the forgiveness will not be reduced due to a reduced FTE count if the borrower, in good faith, can document an inability to return to the “same level of business activity” as prior to February 15, 2020 due to sanitation, social distancing, and worker or customer safety requirements.

Loan Deferral Period: The Act extends the loan deferral period to (a) whenever the amount of loan forgiveness is remitted to the lender or (b) 10 months after the applicable forgiveness covered period if a borrower does not apply for forgiveness during that 10 month period.  Under the unamended PPP, a borrower’s deferral period was to be between 6 and 12 months.

Payroll Tax Deferral: The Act lifts the ban on borrowers whose loans were partially or completely forgiven from deferring payment of payroll taxes.  The payroll tax deferral is now open to all PPP borrowers.

Summary

The Act provides much-needed flexibility to businesses who needed to spend PPP loan proceeds but could not open in order to do so.  As with the initial rollout of the PPP, it will be up to the Department of the Treasury and the Small Business Administration to provide regulations with respect to the Act.

© 2020 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

For more on the PPP, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Reporters Are Pushing to Reveal CARES Act Beneficiaries. Is Your Firm Prepared for Tough Questions?

As law firms continue to announce restructuring, furloughs and layoffs in response to the economic emergency caused by the coronavirus, CMOs and marketing directors of small to midsize firms are quickly realizing they may have to contend with a corresponding PR crisis: their firms’ financials are under increased media scrutiny.

That’s because reporters across the legal and mainstream media are pushing the Small Business Administration and Treasury Department to make public the names of companies that accepted assistance through the various programs created through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, including the Payroll Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loans.

We all saw the stories back in March of billion-dollar-plus companies whose bailouts depleted the PPP fund within days, only to be forced, sheepishly, to return the money after the public outcry. Obviously, midmarket firms are far smaller than those companies in both staff and revenue, but seeing so many powerful corporations take advantage of government support that was intended to help the little guy has made the public skeptical and even hostile toward any business larger than the corner hardware store who received government help.

Add to this inhospitable climate the lack of clear guidance for borrowers and grant recipients on how the money can be used, and all law firms who participated, even those working in good faith to stay well within the bounds of eligibility requirements, could face damage to their reputations. This is particularly true for law firms that predominantly serve small business clients. How will those clients respond if they learn their lawyers received the funding when they themselves struggled to secure it to protect their own business?

One thing we know for sure: this information eventually will be made public, whether the government releases it or it is leaked to reporters at the Washington Post or ALM. Therefore it is critical for CMOs and marketing directors to create a plan for how they will respond if their firm’s name is likely to show up on the list.

Anytime negative media coverage hits, firms have a few options:

  1. Say nothing. Hope for the best. Maybe your firm will show up so far down the list that no one will notice?
  2. Wait for the information to become public and then issue a statement confirming the barest set of facts.
  3. Confirm the facts and make a spokesperson available for interviews.
  4. Proactively disclose your participation in CARES Act programs, explaining why you did so, focusing on the jobs you’re protecting and describing your firm’s plans for weathering the coming months.

While many firms are banking on option #1 and hoping to benefit from chaotic news cycles and short attention spans, there is a risk that they could be underestimating the blowback they may face. If you remain silent while reporters write stories about your firm, your clients and prospects will tend to fill the information vacuum with their own speculation.

The smarter play is to deploy some combination of the other three options, and what that plan looks like will depend on strategic coordination with firm leadership and your answers to a few key questions, such as:

How will your most important clients react to the news that your firm received CARES Act support? Some clients will be relieved to know their law firm is on solid ground and can continue to provide uninterrupted service. Others might question the firm’s underlying financials or, as mentioned above, react with resentment that a business with revenue in the nine figures is displacing a small business. Predicting key clients’ responses to the news will allow you to create a media strategy that defuses criticism and shapes a more positive narrative about why the firm accepted the government support. Think about all the messages you’ve sent over the years about who you are and what you value as a firm. If leadership’s decision-making here was consistent with those messages and values, you’re in good shape.

Has your firm eliminated jobs, and does it plan to? One of the most important and well publicized terms of the PPP is that, in order for the loans to be forgivable, 75% of the funding must be used to cover payroll. This is intended to protect as many jobs as possible. That doesn’t necessarily mean that moving ahead with job eliminations violates the terms of the loan, which can be repaid, in full or in part, at a 1% interest rate. But taking PPP funds and cutting jobs will raise eyebrows. Timing here is key. Did your firm lay people off and then take the funding? Could that be perceived as funneling the benefits to members of the firm who already receive the highest compensation? These are the kinds of questions reporters will be asking; leaders need to be prepared to answer them.

Has your managing partner and other members of the c-suite agreed to sacrifice some of their own compensation? If your firm decides to take the most proactive course and disclose its status, it’s crucial to use that opportunity to tell the most compelling story of why you did so. Of course, every managing partner has sent out a reassuring email to the firm in the past few weeks that says some version of “We’re all in this together,” but this message is a lot more meaningful when leadership can point to actual sacrifices they’ve made to try to save people’s jobs.

One positive development around the CARES Act programs is that now, some weeks after the disastrous rollout and the better-managed second round of PPP loans, businesses are no longer in competition with each other to get needed support. The sense that this is a zero-sum game has subsided, and that’s good news for midsize law firms that may need to disclose their participation. Still, marketers must think carefully about how to engage with the media on this sensitive and still-evolving issue. Don’t wait until a reporter calls to decide what you’re going to say.

© 2020 Page2 Communications. All rights reserved.

For more on the SBA PPP Loan, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Secretary DeVos Rejects Calls for Waivers – School Districts Must Comply with IDEA and Section 504

In the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Congress – among other things – directed U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to report regarding waivers of children’s rights under the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On April 27, DeVos announced she would not recommend that Congress pass any additional waivers concerning the requirements in those acts.

According to the announcement (available here), the secretary determined there is no reason a student’s access to FAPE cannot continue online, through distance education, or other alternatives. She did request that Congress consider additional flexibilities on administrative requirements under the Perkins Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the IDEA (the full report containing the list of waivers is available here).

The importance of this announcement is that schools must continue to provide a FAPE to students in the least restrictive environment even during the current pandemic. Also, without a wholescale waiver, schools should anticipate continuing to hold timely IEP and 504 Team meetings and as stated by the secretary, provide for students’ needs online, through distance education, or other alternative means.

© 2020 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

For more education news, see the National Law Review Public Education and Services law section.

Class Actions Begin: Plaintiffs Target Banks for PPP Loan Processing

A number of class-action lawsuits have been filed targeting national and community banks for their processing of loans under the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). It is not surprising that disputes have already arisen, given the swift creation of the vital relief program and equally rapid depletion of the $349 billion in initial funding. The suits allege that banks violated the CARES Act and state law by prioritizing high-value and existing customers over other small businesses.  More suits are likely to follow, whether based on similar theories or new ones that arise out of the next round of funding.

Plaintiffs in these class actions have accused banks of inappropriately processing and funding larger loans for “bigger business” clients and favoring current customers over other applicants who were unable to obtain loans before the funding ran out. One of the first class actions, filed in federal court in Maryland, sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent banks from prioritizing current bank customers over individuals and businesses that were not current customers of the bank. The court denied plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief, concluded that there is no private right of action under the CARES Act, and found that plaintiffs’ claims were unlikely to survive. See here for a link to the decision. Plaintiffs have appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Two similar class actions have been filed in Texas federal court.

Another class action was filed this week in state court in Texas against a community bank, alleging fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, all arising out of claims that the bank gave preference to customers eligible for larger loans in order to obtain more lucrative fees. Similarly, several small businesses have filed federal class actions in California and New York, accusing banks of false advertising, fraud, violations of state unfair competition law and deceptive trade practices, among others. Additional disputes are likely to arise as small businesses continue to face unprecedented circumstances; reportedly up to 80% of small businesses were unable to obtain loans during the first round of the program.

© 2020 Bracewell LLP

For more on CARES Act PPP Loans, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

CARES Act Provider Relief Fund – Acceptance of Funds Comes with Conditions

Healthcare providers are among those financially adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A survey conducted by the Medical Group Managers Association (“MGMA”) on April 7 and 8, 2020, found that 97% of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.  MGMA also indicates that, on average, practices report a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis.

In response to the financial impact on healthcare providers, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, appropriated $100 billion in relief funds to hospitals and other healthcare providers under the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, also called the “CARES Act Provider Relief Fund.” On April 10, 2020, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released the initial terms and conditions related to the distribution of the initial $30 billion of the $100 billion.  Rather than await the submission of applications by healthcare providers, HHS has begun a rapid delivery of relief funding to healthcare providers and suppliers that are enrolled in Medicare and received Medicare fee-for-service reimbursement in 2019.  These eligible healthcare providers are being allotted a portion of the initial $30 billion distribution based upon their proportionate share of the approximately $484 billion of Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements made in 2019.

Healthcare providers identified as eligible to receive funds from this first distribution should have received an email to that effect.  Eligible healthcare providers have begun receiving payments via the Automated Clearing House account information on file used for reimbursements from The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”).  Healthcare providers that normally receive a paper check for reimbursement from CMS will receive a paper check in the mail.

These payments are not loans and, if used consistent with the applicable terms and conditions, will not need to be repaid.  Healthcare providers must sign an attestation confirming receipt of the funds and agreeing to the terms and conditions of payment within 30 days via the online payment portal.  Should a healthcare provider choose to reject the funds, the healthcare provider within 30 days of receipt of payment must complete the attestation to indicate this and remit the full payment to HHS.  The portal will guide the healthcare provider through the attestation process to accept or reject the funds.

The healthcare provider is required to certify, among other things, that it provides or provided after January 31, 2020 diagnoses, testing, or care for individuals with possible or actual cases of COVID-19.  In a recent update, HHS clarified that to meet this requirement, care does not have to be specific to treating COVID-19, as “HHS broadly views every patient as a possible case of COVID-19.” HHS also clarified that a healthcare provider’s eligibility is not adversely affected if it ceased operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, so long as the healthcare provider provided diagnoses, testing, or care for individuals with possible or actual cases of COVID-19.

In addition to imposing use restrictions for the funds and recordkeeping requirements, the CARES Act authorizes the HHS Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) to audit both interim and final payments made under the program.  Healthcare providers that elect to accept the funds must be prepared to submit to these OIG audits.  Because the funds are limited to necessary expenses or lost revenues due to the pandemic not otherwise reimbursable from other sources, there may be differences in OIG’s interpretation of whether the funds were used for an appropriate purpose.  At a minimum, this may necessitate returning certain disallowed funds following an audit.

Failure to abide by the terms and conditions could result in False Claims Act liability for healthcare providers that do not make proper use of the funds.  Thus, recipients of the funds should carefully consider their ability to comply with the terms and conditions and should ensure that proper controls are in place for proper use of the funds.

© 2020 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

For more on CARES Act funding, see the Coronavirus News section of the National Law Review.

Practical Tips for Tribal Organization Access to the SBA Paycheck Protection Program

Even with news that the initial appropriation for the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), an extension of the Small Business Administration’s 7(a) loan program, has been fully allocated, there are many strategies tribal organizations need to put in place to ensure that the full benefits of the program are realized.  Putting these few practical tips to work – even midway through the PPP process – will give tribal business a better chance of having pending applications accepted and funded, the maximum amount of loan forgiveness achieved later this year, and any new applications accepted with the next Congressional appropriation are quickly funded.

Initial applications for these loans – up to $10 million in debt that may be largely forgivable – have been heavy, and banks are reporting overwhelming demand and challenging delays in pushing out loan funding.  With the promise of more funding (perhaps more than another $200 billion) for this program looming first on Congress’ agenda over the next few weeks – even tribal organizations that have not fully explored the PPP program should consider these practical business insider tips to prepare for success:

  • Understand that there is minimal bank underwriting. The model loan application, the interim program rule, and other SBA guidance documents make abundantly clear that banks are “held harmless” for the vast majority of decisions on PPP loans.  Information requested on the application is minimal and the list of items that must be submitted as supporting documentation is modest (and limited to relevant payroll, benefit, rent, and utility cost information).  This was a policy choice by legislators and rule makers to facilitate the fast deployment of funds under the program.  The implication of light underwriting, however, is that the normal “give and take” process with loan officers to ensure the application is well-balanced and complete is not really happening.  The burden on the banks right now is to loan money fast.
  • Be aware of the heavy borrower burden to “certify” data and key eligibility criteria. The burden of accurate information and fulsome disclosures is entirely on tribal organizations.  Tribal officials or business leaders signing the loan application should personally review the certifications required before submitting the loan (they are on the application) and should not be afraid to question staff or legal counsel on implications in detail.  In a time of crisis, there is not much emphasis on the future oversight, investigation, and enforcement matters that can arise when agencies do an after-the-fact “government accountability” examination of the program.  Given that many tribal organizations and Alaska Native Corporations depend on health relationships with the SBA, great care should be exercised that your application does not subject you to unwanted future scrutiny.
  • Engage early with key contacts at your primary bank.  Banks are under water with demand for funds under the PPP right now.  There are numerous reports that banks are sending small business clients with multiple banking relationships (accounts and/or bank branded credit cards in more than one place) away, claiming another institution is their “primary bank” for application purposes.  A key to any tribal organization’s success in a PPP application is to have person-to-person contact with your banking relationship manager or the designated PPP coordinator. The application is online and completed through a bank portal.  Getting questions resolved and placing your organization on the radar of the PPP loan staff can ensure fewer delays and a smoother application process.
  • Accurate record keeping of use of funds is critical.  One of the most attractive features of the PPP program is that the loan can be largely, if not entirely, forgiven. The banks will be backstopped by funds appropriated to the SBA and by a facility recently approved the Federal Reserve.  Whether your loan is fully forgiven depends on your accurate record keeping and timely submission to the bank later this summer.  The burdens of weathering this pandemic are significant enough that achieving maximum loan forgiveness could be make-or-break for some tribal organization budgets.
  • Public disclosure implications.  Please be aware that submissions made to any government program under the CARES Act may be discoverable by third parties through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  While it is unlikely that any proprietary data on payroll or employees (with privacy concerns) would be released, information about the officers of the business, what it does, and how much its loan was will likely be released from SBA files if a proper FOIA request is submitted in the future.
  • Traditional SBA eligible business rules apply.  With the exception of non-profit businesses (which are now eligible), all of the businesses listed in the SBA rules (at 13 CFR 120.110) are still ineligible for SBA business loans.  Please consult these rules and your legal counsel to assess whether you are eligible for a PPP loan under these rules.

© 2020 Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more on the SBA Paycheck Protection Program, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News Section.

Sole Proprietors, Independent Contractors and Self-Employed Individuals Addressed in Latest Paycheck Protection Program Guidance

On April 14, 2020, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) issued its interim final rules regarding the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), a $350 billion part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (“CARES Act”), to sole proprietors, independent contractors and self-employed individuals. Four days earlier the PPP loan application process opened for this group of applicants. These interim rules provide information for sole proprietors, independent contractors and self-employed individuals who are seeking a PPP loan.

Eligibility

Self-employed individuals are eligible to apply for a PPP loan provided certain eligibility requirements are met. To be eligible for a PPP loan, the individual must: (1) have filed a Form 1040 Schedule C for 2019; (2) have been in operation as of February 15, 2020; and (3) have a principal place of residence in the United States. The interim rules clarify that partnerships, instead of partners, are eligible to apply for a PPP loan. The partnership should file the application and claim each partner’s share of self-employment income from the partnership as “Payroll Costs” (see below).

Maximum Loan Amount

“Payroll Costs” are the base for determining the maximum loan amount for self-employed applicants. Payroll Costs for a self-employed applicant include wages, commissions, income or other similar compensation paid to employees, and net earnings from self-employment. Net earnings from self-employment are indicated on Schedule C of Form 1040 as net profit. Self-employment earnings in excess of $100,000 are excluded from the calculation of Payroll Costs. Payroll Costs also include health insurance, retirement benefits and unemployment benefits. The maximum amount of a PPP loan for a self-employed applicant is the lesser of $10,000,000 or 2.5 times the average monthly Payroll Costs.

Allowable Uses and Loan Forgiveness

Self-employed applicants are subject to the same limitations on allowable uses of PPP loan proceeds and loan forgiveness as business concerns. The amount of loan forgiveness will depend on the amount of loan proceeds spent by the self-employed applicant during the 8-week period following the first disbursement of PPP loan proceeds. A self-employed applicant must have claimed, or be entitled to a claim, a deduction for business expenses on Form 1040 Schedule C for those expenses to be considered for forgiveness. Those expenses must also qualify as allowable uses of PPP loan funds.

©2020 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

For more on the CARES Act, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Streamlining Financial Institution Regulation to Encourage Lending

In recent weeks, regulators of U.S. financial institutions have heeded calls to relax or provide temporary relief from a wide array of regulations that are viewed as impediments to lending in the current crisis environment.  Some of these actions were mandated (or reinforced) by provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”).  Many of the relevant regulations were enacted following the 2008/2009 financial crisis with the goal of strengthening the capital and liquidity positions of financial institutions and limiting their risk taking. The current economic and credit crisis has brought into clear relief the tensions between protecting and limiting risk-taking of financial institutions, and ensuring that those financial institutions have the capacity to lend to support the economy in a crisis, and the changes below make clear that market participants and regulators are increasingly concerned that certain regulations may limit flexibility and credit formation in a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.  Below we present a summary of some of the most significant recent changes that have been enacted by regulators or via statute. If you have questions about what these changes mean for your business or a financial institution you transact with, please reach out to the listed authors or your regular Polsinelli contacts.

Regulatory Streamlining Changes That Have Been Recently Adopted:

  • Changes to Financial Institution Capital Requirements in Connection with Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP):  Existing capital requirements may constrain lending by increasing the amount of equity or other capital that banks must have to support expanded lending, particularly loans that would be assigned a higher risk weighting under existing capital rules.  Additionally, the Federal Reserve’s PPP Lending Facility operates by lending to banks against PPP loans they have originated, which would also have a regulatory capital impact to participating institutions.  To provide liquidity to small business lenders and relief to small businesses, a provision in the CARES Act [1], as implemented with a joint interim final rule issued by the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators [2], (1) provides that PPP loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) will be assigned a zero risk weight under the risk-based capital rules and (2) effects changes to the regulatory capital treatment of utilizing the PPP Lending Facility, which, together, should neutralize the regulatory capital effect of banks increasing lending under the PPP and financing those loans via the Federal Reserve’s PPP Lending Facility.

  • Limiting Troubled Debt Restructurings (TDRs) Determinations: Generally, under U.S. GAAP, lenders are required to treat loans modified due to borrower financial distress as TDRs, which triggers additional reporting obligations and accounting requirements.  Federal and State bank regulators have acted to collectively encourage financial institution to work with borrowers have indicated that they and will not direct supervised institutions to automatically categorize COVID-19 related loan modifications as troubled debt restructurings (TDRs). [3]  Additionally, the CARES Act allows lenders to suspend such determinations, with certain limitations, with respect to loan modifications from March 1, 2020 through the earlier of December 1, 2020 and 60 days after the end of the declared public health emergency. [4]

  • Delay of Application of Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”) to Financial Institutions: FASB auditing standards require that financial institutions recognize the inherent losses in their loan and lease portfolios. CECL is a new methodology for measuring the inherent losses, and requires lenders to estimate and report expected credit losses at origination of a loan, rather than when a loan becomes distressed. The Federal Reserve and other banking agencies issued a joint interim final rule authorizing an extension in the transition period for implementing the full effects of CECL, which is intended to delay any impact that CECL might have on regulatory capital (and therefore lending). [5]  Additionally, the CARES Act specifies that insured depository institutions, bank holding companies and affiliates would not be required to adopt the standard prior to the earlier of December 31, 2020 and the termination of the declaration of national emergency—however market participants have raised questions about whether that would still require them to comply for the 2020 reporting period. [6]  Separate adoption dates apply for smaller financial institutions, and have also been delayed.

  • Temporary Change to Federal Reserve Supplementary Leverage Ratio Rule: The Supplementary Leverage Ratio applies to large financial institutions to limit their total leverage exposure. The change would exclude U.S. Treasury securities and deposits at Federal Reserve Banks from the calculation until March 31, 2021, and would therefore allow those institutions to expand their balance sheets and potentially provide additional credit to households and businesses. [7]

  • Temporary Change to Community Bank Leverage Ratio: Under existing law, qualifying community banking organizations have the option to adopt a simplified 9% leverage ratio in lieu of complying with the full panoply of BASEL III capital rules (those financial institutions meeting the leverage ratio requirement are generally deemed to be well capitalized for prompt corrective action purposes). A provision of the CARES Act, [8] as implemented by interim final rules of the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators, temporarily reduces the applicable leverage ratio to 8% (with a graduated transition to 8.5 % in 2021 and back to 9% thereafter) and provides for a grace period for covered institutions whose leverage ratios fall below the applicable requirement. [9]

  • Technical Changes to Total Loss Absorbing Capital Rules (“TLAC”): TLAC rules require global systemically-important  banks to maintain loss-absorbing long term debt and other tier 1 capital at specified levels.  The Federal Reserve System revised the definition of eligible retained income for purposes of the TLAC rules. This technical change allows covered companies to continue to lend and utilize their capital buffers in a gradual manner without severely constraining their ability to distribute capital. [10]

  • Deferral of Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Transactions Affected by COVID-19: The federal banking agencies have issued a final interim rule [11] allowing lenders to defer certain appraisals and evaluations for up to 120 days after closing of residential or commercial real estate loan transactions to provide temporary relief by enabling regulated institutions to continue to close loans even if they are unable to arrange an appraisal/evaluation ahead of closing. [12] Real estate transaction involving acquisitions, development and constructions are excluded from the scope of the interim final rule. The temporary relief provisions will expire on December 31, 2020, unless extended. The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will consider a similar proposal on April 16, 2020. [13] The federal agencies along with NCUA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have issued a joint statement offering guidance and describing temporary changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac appraisal standards to provide assistance to lenders. [14]

  • Federal Reserve Regulatory Reporting Relief for Small Institutions: The Federal Reserve will not take action against a financial institution with $5 billion or less in total assets for submitting its March 31, 2020, Consolidated Financial Statements for Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) or Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries of U.S. Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-11) after the official filing deadline, as long as the applicable report is submitted within 30 days of the official filing due date. [15] The federal financial institution regulators and state regulators also offer similar relief to financial institutions affected by COVID-19. [16]

  • Temporary Modification to Wells Fargo Growth Restriction Order: One of the consequences of the Wells Fargo account opening scandal was a 2018 Consent Order that, among other things, restricted Wells Fargo’s asset growth until it met certain requirements. In light of the extraordinary events related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve amended that order to temporarily lift the asset restriction to allow Wells Fargo to continue lending without violating the limits in the order. [17]

  • Six-Month Delay of the Federal Reserve’s Revised Control Framework:  The Revised Control Framework would have changed the determination of “control” for purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act and therefore the application of certain bank regulatory requirements.  The delay moves the effective date to September 30, 2020 to give additional time for implementation as well as for institutions to consult with the Federal Reserve on the effect of the change. [18]

  • Early adoption of Standardized Approach for Measuring Counterparty Credit Risk Rule (“SA-CCR”): SA-CCR is a new methodology for measuring counterparty credit risk of derivatives contracts for regulatory capital purposes, The Federal Reserve and other banking regulators issued a joint notification allowing the companies early adoption of SA-CCR by banks and bank holding companies, with the intent that the early adoption could reduce regulatory capital requirements and therefore encourage lending. [19]

[1] 26 U.S.C. §1102.

[2] Federal Reserve, Interim Final Rule, Regulatory Capital Rule: Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility and Paycheck Protection Program Loans (amending Sections 32 and 131 of the capital rule) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200409a1.pdf.  See, 12 CFR 3.2, 12 CFR 3.32(a)(1)(iii), 12 CFR 3.131(e)(3)(viii) and 3.305 (OCC); 12 CFR 217.2, 12 CFR 217.32(a)(1)(iii), 12 CFR 217.131(e)(3)(viii) and 12 CFR 217.305 (Federal Reserve); 12 CFR 324.2, 12 CFR 324.32(a)(1)(iii), 12 CFR 324.131(e)(3)(viii) and 12 CFR 324.304 (FDIC).

[3]  Federal Reserve et al. Press Release, Agencies Provide Additional Information to Encourage Financial Institutions to Work with Borrowers Affected by COVID-19 (March 22, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200322a.htm. See, also, Federal Reserve et al. Press Release, Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working with Customers Affected by the Coronavirus (March 22, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200322a1.pdf; Federal Reserve et al. Press Release, Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working With Customers Affected by the Coronavirus (Revised) (April 7, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200407a1.pdf.

[4] 26 U.S.C. §4013.

[5] Federal Register, Regulatory Capital Rule: Revised Transition of the Current Expected Credit Losses Methodology for Allowances (March 31, 2020) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/31/2020-06770/regulatory-capital-rule-revised-transition-of-the-current-expected-credit-losses-methodology-for.

[6] 26 U.S.C. §4014.

[7] Federal Reserve Press Release, Federal Reserve Board announces temporary change to its supplementary leverage ratio rule to ease strains in the Treasury market resulting from the coronavirus and increase banking organizations’ ability to provide credit to households and businesses (April 1, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200401a.htm.

[8] 26 U.S.C. §4012.

[9] Federal Reserve, Interim Final Rule, Regulatory Capital Rule: Temporary Changes to the Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework, (amending 12 CFR Chapters I, II and III), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200406a1.pdf; Federal Reserve, Interim Final Rule, Regulatory Capital Rule: Transition for the Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework, (amending 12 CFR Chapter I, II and III), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200406a2.pdf

[10] Federal Register, Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, Long-Term Debt, and Clean Holding Company Requirements for Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies and Intermediate Holding Companies of Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations: Eligible Retained Income (March 26, 2020) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/26/2020-06371/total-loss-absorbing-capacity-long-term-debt-and-clean-holding-company-requirements-for-systemically.

[11] Federal Reserve, Interim Final Rule, Real Estate Appraisals (amending 12 CFR 34, 12 CFR 225 and 12 CFR 323), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200414a1.pdf. See, 12 CFR 34.43 (OCC); 12 CFR 225.63 (Federal Reserve); 12 CFR 323.3 (FDIC).

[12] Federal Reserve et al., Press Release, Federal Banking Agencies to Defer Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Transactions Affected by COVID-19 (April 14, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200414a.htm. 

[13] Id.  

[14] Federal Reserve et al., Interagency Statement on Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Related Financial Transactions Affected by the Coronavirus (April 14, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200414a2.pdf.

[15] Federal Reserve Press Release, Federal Reserve offers regulatory reporting relief to small financial institutions affected by the coronavirus (March 26, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200326b.htm.

[16] FFIEC Press Release, Financial Regulators Highlight Coordination and Collaboration of Efforts to Address COVID-19 (March 25, 2020) https://www.ffiec.gov/press/pr032520.htm.  

[17] Consent Order, In the matter of Wells Fargo & Company, Docket No. 20-007-B-HC, United States of America before the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Washington, D.C., filed April 8, 2020, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/enf20200408a1.pdf.

[18] Federal Reserve Press Release, Federal Reserve Board announces it will delay by six months the effective date for its revised control framework (March 31, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200331a.htm. 

[19] Federal Register, Standardized Approach for Calculating the Exposure Amount of Derivatives Contracts (March 31, 2020) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/31/2020-06755/standardized-approach-for-calculating-the-exposure-amount-of-derivative-contracts

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

For more on COVID19 related lending, see the Coronavirus News section of the National Law Review.

Stimulus, IRS Extended Deadline and Gifting Opportunities

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)

  • President Trump signed the CARES Act on March 27, 2020, a $2 trillion stimulus package providing $560 billion of relief for individuals, including:
    • Cash Payments: $1,200 per individual ($2,400 for couples); plus $500 per qualifying child1
    • Retirement Funds: Early withdrawal penalties waived for distributions of up to $100,000, if withdrawal is for coronavirus related purposes
    • 401(k) Loans: Loan limit increased from $50,000 to $100,000
    • Required Minimum Distributions: Suspended in 2020 for IRA/401(k) plans, including inherited IRAs
    • Charitable Deduction: Up to $300 charitable deduction for 2020 taxpayers who utilize the standard deduction

Extension of filing and payment deadlines

  • The federal and Wisconsin income tax return filing and payment deadline for the 2019 tax year was automatically extended to July 15, 2020
  • The federal gift tax return filing and payment deadline for the 2019 tax year was automatically extended to July 15, 2020

Gifting opportunities

  • Low valuations, low interest rates, and the anticipated reduction in the federal estate/gift tax exemption from $11.58 million to approximately $6.5 million on January 1, 2026 have created many planning opportunities, including:
    • Gifts and/or sales to existing or newly established Trusts to take advantage of low valuations and use the $11.58 million exemption while it is still available;
    • Amending intra-family loans to take advantage of low interest rates; and
    • Creation of charitable lead trusts, grantor retained annuity trusts, and other estate planning techniques that benefit from low interest rates are particularly attractive right now.

Now may also be a good time for clients to review their existing estate plans to make certain that their plans are up to date and consistent with their wishes.

1Amounts are phased down for individuals making more than $75,000 ($150,000 for couples) and phased out for individuals making more than $99,000 ($198,000 for couples)

Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.